Post on 09-Jan-2016
description
Barriers for first and second language acquisition. When delay leads to deviance. 37-975-01 Challenges to Language Acquisition: Bilingualism and Language Impairment
Dr. Sharon Armon-LotemBar Ilan University
Simultaneous Bilinguals - Two systems or one? 2 L1s?Under what conditions are the two languages of a bilingual child differentiated? (e.g. Genesee, 2001; Muller & Hulk, 2000).
Unitary-language system hypothesis - The language systems are not differentiated right from the beginning - the child does not have resources to do itDifferentiated (dual)-language systems hypothesis - The language systems are differentiated right from the beginning
First words of a bilingual child (Shelli) classified
From: Berman, R. 1977. The role of proper nouns at the one-word stage. TAU ms. Berman, R. 1978. Early verbs. Int'l J Psycholinguistics 5: 21-29
Volterra and Taeschner (1977) - three stages Diary studies of simultaneous bilinguals (one parent - one language)Words from both languages are included without differentiationChildren mixed words from both languagesA word in one language almost never had a corresponding word with the same meaning in the other languageThe two lexicons are differentiated but not the syntax (~ 2)Two different words pertaining to the two languages describe the same event or object The pragmatic context influenced the choice of wordsThere are two linguistic codes distinguished in lexicon and in syntax (~3)Both languages are used correctly at the lexical and the syntactic levels
Verbs & nouns in the bilingual mental lexicon Schelletter, C. (2005) Bilingual Children's Lexical Development: Factors Affecting the Acquisition of Nouns and Verbs and Their Translation Equivalents. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, 2095-2103. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Translation equivalentsAdult bilinguals - particular groups of words and their translation equivalents have a closer relationship and are translated faster as a result. Kroll & Stewart (1994), Kroll & de Groot (1997) and van Hell & de Groot (1998) - there is an effect of form similarity. Nouns that are similar in sound and spelling are translated faster in both translation directions. The conceptual feature model (Kroll & De Groot 1997) - form similar words have a feature overlap in their conceptual representations in the two languages. What about children? Can the previous findings on form similar nouns be also be extended to verbs?
A case studyGerman/English bilingual girlAge of 1;11 to 2;8 in German and 2;2 to 2;9 in English. Three sub-periods: period 1 from 1;11 to 2;3, period 2 from 2;4 to 2;6 and period 3 from 2;7 to 2;9.
Lindholm and Padilla (1977(Language samples (2;10 and 6;2) - one experimenter/one language Two separate linguistic systems from an early age. Mixing (2% of utterances) mostly occurs at the lexical level - substitutions of nouns. Mixing is due to lexical gaps or familiarity
Genesee (1989)bilingual childrens mixed utterances are modeled on mixed input produced by others (p. 169).
Lanza (1992)Longitudinal study A great impact of language input, the context of the conversation, and parental strategies toward child language mixing, dominance. Mixing per se is not enough in order to determine that the child does not differentiate his two languages
Quay (1995) Longitudinal study By 1;10 - Over 50 pairs
Sequential Bilingual: The role of Universal Grammar (UG) in L2A - Transfer vs. Access.
Full Transfer/No AccessNo Transfer/Full Access (e.g., Ritchie, 1978; Felix, 1988, Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996) Full Transfer/Full Access (e.g., Schwartz & Sprouse 1996)Partial Transfer/Full Access (e.g. Eubank 1994, Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996)
Full Transfer/No Access No aspect of UG, not instantiated in the native language (L1), is available to the learner (cf. Bley-Vroman 1989, Clahsen 1988). Thus the learner has to rely only on her knowledge of L1 and on some learning strategies.
Since UG is not available to the learner, similarities to first language acquisition will be viewed as artifacts that might reflect the influence of L1, rather than evidence for access to UG.
No Transfer/Full AccessUG in full constrains Second Language Acquisition. L1 does not affect L2; there is no transfer of any principles, parameters, or rules from L1 to L2. These assumptions entail a similar course of acquisition for L1 and L2.
Full Transfer/Full AccessThe process starts with transfer from L1 parameters and values to L2, but the correction by the L2 learner is made by parameter resetting which is constrained by UG. The duality of FT/FA predicts that the development of the grammar in L2 follows a similar path to the one seen in the development of L1. Any divergence from this path is attributed to the L1 influence.
Partial Transfer/Full AccessL1 structure is available to L2 learners with underspecified slots, i.e. with no features. L1 structure is the baseline, but UG is accessed in order to specify the slots and set the features to the L2 values.
The Minimal Trees hypothesis
These hypotheses were made for adult learners. Does it matter? Are children different? Is there a critical period for access to UG?
Subject omissionAllen, S. (2006) Language acquisition in inuktitut-english bilinguals. Paper presented at the Conference on Language Acquisition and Bilingualism: Consequences for a Multilingual Society, Boston University
6 Inuktitut-English bilingual childrenaged 1;8 to 2;11 at onset, taped for one year5 children have two bilingual Inuit parents1 child has English-speaking father and bilingual mothernaturalistic data collected via videotape(Allen, Genesee, Fish & Crago 2002)
Contrastive analysisEnglishovert subjects usually required (e.g. John ate the cake.)subject omission allowed in imperatives and certain colloquial instances (e.g. ____ Eat the cake!)Inuktitutovert subjects only required for emphasis or disambiguationsubject omission allowed in all other instances(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
PredictionsIf no crosslinguistic influencesubject omission rates similar to monolinguals in both languagesIf crosslinguistic influencesubject omission rates different from monolinguals in one or both languages(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
EnglishInuktitut(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
Object omissionYip, V. and S. Matthews (2005) Dual Input and Learnability: Null Objects in Cantonese-English Bilingual Children. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, 2421-2431. Somerville,MA: Cascadilla Press.
Simultaneously bilinguals , Cantonese/English, Longitudinal recordings, ages 1;6 - 3;6.
Null objects in MLRoeper (1981, 140) All subcategorizations are obligatory until positive evidence shows that they are optional. Ingham (1993:109) - Naomi 1;08-1;11, 4.8% (12/251 tokens).Huang (1999) - Adam 2;052;09, 3.5%
Why? An analysis of null objectsMueller (1998:153) - Input ambiguity: transfer may occur when two different grammatical hypotheses are compatible with the same surface string.
(a) the target analysis applicable to adult English, in which the missing object is not syntactically present, but interpreted semantically as generic: eat [+generic]
(b) the analysis based on Chinese grammar (see examples 22-25), in which the missing object is syntactically present, coreferential with a null topic and therefore interpreted as specific: [TOPIC ]i eat x i [+specific]
Is there a critical period for L1 acquisition?Lennenberg (1967) A biological basis to the critical period. Around puberty when left hemisphere lateralization is complete. Child aphasics can recover language function, whereas adults cannot.Seliger (1979) Plasticity of the left hemisphere. Multiple critical periods. Genie, Chelsea.Newport (1990) Three groups of deaf children exposed to ASL at different ages (early childhood, 4-6, 12)
>>> There are several sensitive periods for learning different language functions.
Sign Language (Mayberry 1993)
Brain Studies
Is there a critical period for L2 acquisition?
Kim & Hirsch (1997)fMRI study Two groups of bilingual people:Group 1 Child L2 learnersGroup 2 Adult L2 learnersTask: think of what you did that day, first in L1 then in L2.Findings: both groups used the same part of Wernicke's area for both languagesGroup 1 used the same part of Broca's area for L1 and L2 Group 2 used a part of Broca's area next to the L1 processing area for L2
Possible explanationsIn childhood all language is hardwired in one area. Once hardwiring is complete a different area of the brain must be used critical periodL2 Acquisition vs. L2 learning - Different kinds of input are stored in different parts of the brain
Johnson & Newport (1989)Critical period effects in second language learning; The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology 21: 60-99A clear relationship between age of arrival to USA (of 46 Korean or Chinese speakers) and the ability to judge grammaticality of English sentences (containing 12 different types of rules(
Long, M. H. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12:251-285
Adults proceed through early stages of morphological and syntactic development faster than children (where time and exposure are held constant).Older children acquire faster than younger children (again in early stages of morphology and syntax, where time and exposure are held constant0.Child starters outperform adult starters in the long run.
Flynn & Manuel (1992).Age dependent effects in language acquisition: An evaluation of critical period hypothesis."More than one critical period. UG is available for adults too.
Birdsong, D. 1992. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68:706-753
L2 learners success/ failure to reach ultimate attainment in the L2 is due to the similarity/ variance between the L1 and the L2.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.The affect of language aptitude. The affect of structural saliency.
Bialystok 1997Criticism of Johnson & Newport on every possible level: experimental technique, age related factors, etc.Observations:Knowing a system in L1 facilitates its learning in L2 (German and English speakers learning French nominal system).Length of residence affects judgment, not age of arrival (Chinese speakers grammaticality judgment in English)Different experimental techniques may lead to different conclusionsChildrens successful attainment is due to different learning styleConclusion:All kinds of knowledge are acquired in the same way, the only difference being the amount of past experience which is brought into the process.There is no evidence for critical period for language learning
Questions:
Why does the influence of L1 on L2 entail that there is no critical period?Why cant different tasks affect the results if there is a critical period?Correcting written samples is more natural for adult learnersIs translation the same a natural processing? Isnt translation the thing that adult learners do, but young ones dont?Is it the case that there is no critical period for language learning but there is a critical period for language replacement?
Definiteness in L2 Hebrew of bilingual children with L1 Russian (Armon-Lotem 2005) Russian immigrant children aged 10 to 12, who have been exposed to Hebrew for six or seven years Both parents speak Russian at home, though all know Hebrew.Children speak Russian with parents, and Hebrew with siblings and friendsAll children study at the same school and are from middle SES
Focus of study: Barriers to second language acquisition (Bialystok, 1997) Amount and type of exposure (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978)Length of residence Difference in learning style Different motivation between children and adults.
MethodTest groups:Three groups of L2 Hebrew children, according to age of arrival (3, 4;6, and 6) Two groups of L1 Hebrew controls (aged 10 and 12).10 subjects in each groupTasksA yes/no judgment taskA picture elicitation task
The yes/no judgment Tasks11 categories of pragmatic and syntactic environment where the definite article should, or shouldnt be used (cf. Fruchtman 1982) Both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Subject were asked to mark sentences as linguistically correct and incorrect
The picture elicitation task5 categories of pragmatic and syntactic environment where the definite article should, or shouldnt be used (cf. Fruchtman 1982) Subjects were presented with a picture and were asked to complete a description of the picture.
Findings - Judgment TaskNumber and percentage of correct results: a cross-group comparison77%66%66%85%90%
A cross-group comparisonChildren who were exposed to Hebrew from the age of three scored significantly better than those arriving at a later age.They scored marginally lower than their age matched controls.Children who were exposed to Hebrew after the age of 4;6 scored significantly lower than their age matched controls.
Group profile: Individual scores within groupsNumber of correct responses [N= 26]
Chart3
2323232526
2221212526
2120202426
2120202425
2119182425
2116172324
2016172223
2015141920
1913131920
1512121820
3/7, L2
4/6, L2
6/6, L2
10, L1
12, L1
Sheet1
Judgment
3/73 7 N4/64 6 N6/66 6 N1010 N1212 N
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%242187.50%242187.50%24
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat3975.00%12650.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat415.49886.10%1810.99861.10%1813.98677.70%1815.98488.80%1815.98488.80%18
cat59.99683.30%126.99658.30%127.99266.60%1212100.00%1210.99291.60%12
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat710.99291.60%128.19668.30%12975.00%12975.00%1212100.00%12
cat87.99266.60%12975.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat96.99658.30%12650.00%12650.00%129.99683.30%1212100.00%12
cat109.9955.50%189.9955.50%187.99244.40%1811.98866.60%1816.99294.40%18
cat1110.99291.60%1210.99291.60%129.99683.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
sum120.44477.21%156103.17666.14%156103.93866.63%156132.93685.22%156140.92890.34%156
Correct Answers
835Group 3/777%91%77/85
174Group 4/666%73%66/900.0096610951
22Group 6/666%
Group 1085%
Group 1290%
91%
73%
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%24
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%12
sum38.98881.23%4835.00472.93%4830.97264.53%48
Elicitation
3/74/66/6
cat12480.00%3026.0186.70%3024.9983.30%30
cat22790.00%3023.0176.70%3021.9973.30%30
cat311.98866.60%18950.00%189.9955.50%18
cat44.99883.30%64.00266.70%6350.00%60.0049986887
43.98681.46%5436.01266.69%5434.9864.78%54
0.0152680722
3/74/66/6
Judgment77%66%66%
Elicitation81%67%65%
E180%83%J20.5065844908
E366%75%J1
E483%92%J7
E5100%92%J11
3/7, L24/6, L26/6, L210, L112, L1
12323232526
22221212526
32120202426
42120202425
4.677777777813.166666666752119182425
232362116172324
222172016172223
212082015141920
212091913131920
2119101512121820
2116
2016Mean20.317.517.522.323.5
2015Range15-2323 - 1223 -1218-2526 -20
1913Var4.677777777813.166666666713.16666666677.12222222226.7222222222
1512Avadev1.443.12.92.242.2
203175175223235
Sheet1
2323232526
2221212526
2120202426
2120202425
2119182425
2116172324
2016172223
2015141920
1913131920
1512121820
3/7, L2
4/6, L2
6/6, L2
10, L1
12, L1
Sheet2
Sheet2
0.770.660.660.850.9
Group 3/7
Group 4/6
Group 6/6
Group 10
Group 12
Sheet3
0.750.70850.666
0.8330.750.583
0.750.50.75
0.8610.6110.777
0.8330.5830.666
0.9160.750.666
0.9160.6830.75
0.6660.750.75
0.5830.50.5
0.5550.5550.444
0.9160.9160.833
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.750.666
0.8330.583
0.750.75
0.8610.777
0.8330.666
0.9160.666
0.9160.75
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.444
0.9160.833
3/7
6/6
0.750.7085
0.8330.75
0.750.5
0.8610.611
0.8330.583
0.9160.75
0.9160.683
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.555
0.9160.916
3/7
4/6
0.750.875
0.8330.916
0.750.916
0.8610.888
0.8331
0.9160.75
0.9160.75
0.6660.916
0.5830.833
0.5550.666
0.9160.916
3/7
10
2323232526
2221212526
2120202426
2120202425
2119182425
2116172324
2016172223
2015141920
1913131920
1512121820
3/7, L2
4/6, L2
6/6, L2
10, L1
12, L1
0.81455555560.66688888890.6477777778
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.80.867
0.90.767
0.6660.5
0.8330.667
3/7
4/6
0.80.8670.833
0.90.7670.733
0.6660.50.555
0.8330.6670.5
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.770.81
0.660.67
0.660.65
Judgment
Elicitation
Comparing the groups on the different categoriesOn nine of the eleven categories, 3/7 scored better than the 6/6 group, on one category they scored the same, and on one worse, but this was not significant.On eight of the eleven categories, 3/7 scored better than the 4/6 group, on two category they scored the same, and on one worse, but this was not significant.There was no significant difference between the 4/6 and 6/6 groups.Only three categories showed negative correlation between success and age for all three groups.Both control groups scored better (average of 88% correct answers) on all categories, except one, on which the youngest L2 children scored better.
Findings - Picture Elicitation TaskSimilar results of a negative correlation between success and age were found on the picture elicitation task, with the 3/7 group scoring significantly better then the other two groups. On three of the five categories, 3/7 scored better than both groups, and on one categories they scored the same. All groups scored at ceiling on the fifth categoryPercentage of correct results: a cross-group comparison
Chart10
0.81455555560.66688888890.6477777778
3/7
4/6
6/6
Sheet1
Judgment
3/73 7 N4/64 6 N6/66 6 N1010 N1212 N
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%242187.50%242187.50%24
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat3975.00%12650.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat415.49886.10%1810.99861.10%1813.98677.70%1815.98488.80%1815.98488.80%18
cat59.99683.30%126.99658.30%127.99266.60%1212100.00%1210.99291.60%12
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat710.99291.60%128.19668.30%12975.00%12975.00%1212100.00%12
cat87.99266.60%12975.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat96.99658.30%12650.00%12650.00%129.99683.30%1212100.00%12
cat109.9955.50%189.9955.50%187.99244.40%1811.98866.60%1816.99294.40%18
cat1110.99291.60%1210.99291.60%129.99683.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
sum120.44477.21%156103.17666.14%156103.93866.63%156132.93685.22%156140.92890.34%156
Correct Answers
835Group 3/777%91%77/85
174Group 4/666%73%66/900.0096610951
22Group 6/666%
Group 1085%
Group 1290%
91%
73%
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%24
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%12
sum38.98881.23%4835.00472.93%4830.97264.53%48
Elicitation
cat12480.00%3026.0186.70%3024.9983.30%30
3/74/66/6
cat22790.00%3023.0176.70%3021.9973.30%30
cat311.98866.60%18950.00%189.9955.50%18
cat44.99883.30%64.00266.70%6350.00%6
43.98681.46%5436.01266.69%5434.9864.78%54
Sheet2
Sheet2
0.770.660.660.850.9
Group 3/7
Group 4/6
Group 6/6
Group 10
Group 12
Sheet3
0.750.70850.666
0.8330.750.583
0.750.50.75
0.8610.6110.777
0.8330.5830.666
0.9160.750.666
0.9160.6830.75
0.6660.750.75
0.5830.50.5
0.5550.5550.444
0.9160.9160.833
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.750.666
0.8330.583
0.750.75
0.8610.777
0.8330.666
0.9160.666
0.9160.75
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.444
0.9160.833
3/7
6/6
0.750.7085
0.8330.75
0.750.5
0.8610.611
0.8330.583
0.9160.75
0.9160.683
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.555
0.9160.916
3/7
4/6
0.81455555560.66688888890.6477777778
3/7
4/6
6/6
Comparison across tasksNo significant differences were found between the two tasksPercentage of correct results across tasks
Chart12
0.770.81
0.660.67
0.660.65
Judgment
Elicitation
Sheet1
Judgment
3/73 7 N4/64 6 N6/66 6 N1010 N1212 N
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%242187.50%242187.50%24
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat3975.00%12650.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat415.49886.10%1810.99861.10%1813.98677.70%1815.98488.80%1815.98488.80%18
cat59.99683.30%126.99658.30%127.99266.60%1212100.00%1210.99291.60%12
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat710.99291.60%128.19668.30%12975.00%12975.00%1212100.00%12
cat87.99266.60%12975.00%12975.00%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
cat96.99658.30%12650.00%12650.00%129.99683.30%1212100.00%12
cat109.9955.50%189.9955.50%187.99244.40%1811.98866.60%1816.99294.40%18
cat1110.99291.60%1210.99291.60%129.99683.30%1210.99291.60%1210.99291.60%12
sum120.44477.21%156103.17666.14%156103.93866.63%156132.93685.22%156140.92890.34%156
Correct Answers
835Group 3/777%91%77/85
174Group 4/666%73%66/900.0096610951
22Group 6/666%
Group 1085%
Group 1290%
91%
73%
cat11875.00%2417.00470.85%2415.98466.60%24
cat610.99291.60%12975.00%127.99266.60%12
cat29.99683.30%12975.00%126.99658.30%12
sum38.98881.23%4835.00472.93%4830.97264.53%48
Elicitation
3/74/66/6
cat12480.00%3026.0186.70%3024.9983.30%30
cat22790.00%3023.0176.70%3021.9973.30%30
cat311.98866.60%18950.00%189.9955.50%18
cat44.99883.30%64.00266.70%6350.00%60.0049986887
43.98681.46%5436.01266.69%5434.9864.78%54
0.0152680722
3/74/66/6
Judgment77%66%66%
Elicitation81%67%65%
Sheet2
Sheet2
0.770.660.660.850.9
Group 3/7
Group 4/6
Group 6/6
Group 10
Group 12
Sheet3
0.750.70850.666
0.8330.750.583
0.750.50.75
0.8610.6110.777
0.8330.5830.666
0.9160.750.666
0.9160.6830.75
0.6660.750.75
0.5830.50.5
0.5550.5550.444
0.9160.9160.833
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.750.666
0.8330.583
0.750.75
0.8610.777
0.8330.666
0.9160.666
0.9160.75
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.444
0.9160.833
3/7
6/6
0.750.7085
0.8330.75
0.750.5
0.8610.611
0.8330.583
0.9160.75
0.9160.683
0.6660.75
0.5830.5
0.5550.555
0.9160.916
3/7
4/6
0.81455555560.66688888890.6477777778
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.80.867
0.90.767
0.6660.5
0.8330.667
3/7
4/6
0.80.8670.833
0.90.7670.733
0.6660.50.555
0.8330.6670.5
3/7
4/6
6/6
0.770.81
0.660.67
0.660.65
Judgment
Elicitation
ConclusionGiven the young age of arrival for all three groups and the long period of exposure, the differences are striking. The major factor for success in L2 acquisition by children is age of first exposure rather than length of residence, difference in learning style, or difference in task. For children, the critical period is most critical, though its effects might fade away with time.
Length of Exposure, Age of Exposure and Success on L2 Standardized tests. Results from the BMBF funded Consortium Migration and societal Integration. Grant No. 01UW0702B.
Participants
Fathers Occupational Status
Chart1
1521
1926
2516
2Unemployed
Father's Occupation German
Father's Occupation Israeli
Sheet1
Father's Occupation
GermanIsraeli
Professional1521
Skilled1926
Semi-skilled2516
Unemployed2
Mother's Occupation
GermanIsraeli
Professional725
Skilled1533
Semi-skilled917
Unemployed30
Sheet1
Father's Occupation German
Father's Occupation Israeli
Mother's Occupation German
Mother's Occupation Israeli
Mothers Occupational Status
Chart2
725
1533
917
30Unemployed
Mother's Occupation German
Mother's Occupation Israeli
Sheet1
Father's Occupation
GermanIsraeli
Professional1521
Skilled1926
Semi-skilled2516
Unemployed2
Mother's Occupation
GermanIsraeli
Professional725
Skilled1533
Semi-skilled917
Unemployed30
Sheet1
Father's Occupation German
Father's Occupation Israeli
Mother's Occupation German
Mother's Occupation Israeli
- (- 2009) 10-25 (19)26-46 (25)47-75 (11)
L2/Hebrew Acquisition: Israeli Cohort
1 Age of L2 Onset: Goralnik standardized test and two subtests (Vocabulary, Sentence Imitation)2 Length of Exposure: Goralnik standardized test and two subtests (Vocabulary, Sentence Imitation)
Significant difference between the group with the oldest age of onset (after the age of 3) and the two other groups with no significant difference between the two other groups.
Significant difference between the group with the least length of exposure (up to two years) and the two other groups, with no significant difference between the two other groups.
L2/German Acquisition: German CohortAGE: Significant for all tasks 4s vs. 5s & 6s
1 Length of exposure: Standardized test2 Length of exposure: Linguistic tasks
All three groups score within the monolingual norm, but below the monolingual mean -- with older children and children with length of exposure of over 4 years barely reaching the monolingual mean.
Chart1
-1.0143
-0.6645
-0.3087
Normed z-score
Length of exposure
z-score
Length of Exposure and Normed z-score
Sheet1
Figure 3
36mo
Imitation0.51226177560.0931697122-0.1893864181
Vocabulary-0.7475725965-1.603511855-2.5667300479
Total score-0.3783416585-0.975990903-1.8240061191
Descriptive Statistics
Age of Onset 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Goralnik z scoresbefore 24mo-0.37834165850.957038781322
25-36mo-0.9759909030.797869004521
after 36mo-1.82400611911.684913193829
Total-1.13493754031.395920674372
GoralnikZvocbefore 24mo-0.74757259651.058164963622
25-36mo-1.6035118551.18474259121
after 36mo-2.56673004791.847649837529
Total-1.72993774261.631753287372
goralnikZimibefore 24mo0.51226177560.427627966922
25-36mo0.09316971220.799070076721
after 36mo-0.18938641811.11130557229
Total0.10741829020.898787634172
Figure 4
48mo
Imitation-0.0779626190.02184270880.4717139672
Vocabulary-2.73653333-1.7016212801-0.6788513552
Total score-2.0290973598-0.991420159-0.4071274117
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Goralnik z scoresless than 24mo-2.02909735981.333272202423
24-47mo-0.9914201591.324901629633
48mo and more-0.40712741171.038776918318
Total-1.17181618831.395324700474
GoralnikZvocless than 24mo-2.736533332.004753216523
24-47mo-1.70162128011.206784888233
48mo and more-0.67885135521.02607083918
Total-1.77450125981.638531263174
goralnikZimiless than 24mo-0.0779626191.066243081223
24-47mo0.02184270880.897166495733
48mo and more0.47171396720.479747625318
Total0.10025027790.892111939274
Figure 5
36mo
Imitation0.44370496670.1039076358-0.3188091751
Sentence completion0.47837154490.0433570962-0.3308378752
NV Lexis0.48006261330.33139352-0.2122446702
Descriptive Statistics
Age of Onset 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)before 24mo0.44370496670.559232404821
25-36mo0.10390763580.619807516222
after 36mo-0.31880917511.268423995731
Total0.02325253870.979739148674
Zscore: sentence completion (out of 42)before 24mo0.47837154490.712200980421
25-36mo0.04335709620.973486113122
after 36mo-0.33083787521.094942694631
Total0.01004978961.008493672674
ZHebLexisNVbefore 24mo0.48006261330.509293787221
25-36mo0.331393520.513446288422
after 36mo-0.21224467020.845340403231
Total0.14584307490.733167362874
Figure 6
48mo
Imitation-0.31630839670.04916251030.4925647137
Sentence completion-0.49172091140.1090698670.5604974561
NV Lexis-0.27508650520.19253583790.5016283331
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)less than 24mo-0.31630839671.220405680325
24-47mo0.04916251030.875634337535
48mo and more0.49256471370.480501081717
Total0.02839711790.974387687677
Zscore: sentence completion (out of 42)less than 24mo-0.49172091140.98762524625
24-47mo0.1090698671.007929586435
48mo and more0.56049745610.619406368117
Total0.01367375730.9991907877
ZHebLexisNVless than 24mo-0.27508650520.817965927325
24-47mo0.19253583790.655914942635
48mo and more0.50162833310.561843210117
Total0.1089516020.745944484377
Figure 7
SingletonTwo or more
Perposition imitation0.1241290248-0.1205460442
Inflection imitation-0.0756374483-0.0325976518
complex syntax imitation0.1715476167-0.124962614
sentence completion0.1252766738-0.0911707385
Naming0.4225-0.0895
Case imitation0.1624247527-0.0352023228
Descriptive Statistics
Family SizeMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation preposition (out of 35)singleton0.12412902481.132509579314
two or more children-0.12054604421.054233267149
Total-0.06617380661.067654648863
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)singleton-0.07563744831.336664110414
two or more children-0.03259765181.008645994949
Total-0.0421620511.078234045963
Zscore: imitation complex (out of 20)singleton0.17154761670.989568951714
two or more children-0.1249626141.013120760449
Total-0.05907145161.007675354363
Zscore: sentence completion (1st+2nd trials) (out of 135)singleton0.12527667380.995981254214
two or more children-0.09117073851.006264664449
Total-0.04307131361.000073811563
Zscore: Case (out of 12)singleton0.16242475270.986979343314
two or more children-0.03520232281.016579538449
Total0.00871480511.005579421863
Figure 8
48mo
Perposition Imitation-0.9995018696-0.05303479310.3158089941
Complex syntax Imitation-0.80765666670.01033285710.39003
Sentence Compleion-1.1912395996-0.09472507660.4353526248
Naming-1.2947025205-0.03294317140.5065599587
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 groupsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: german imitation preposition %less than 24mo-0.99950186960.60923243596
24-47mo-0.05303479311.021981887628
48mo and more0.31580899410.949634406621
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %less than 24mo-1.19123959960.82436003036
24-47mo-0.09472507660.903034355428
48mo and more0.43535262480.905721406821
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %less than 24mo-1.29470252050.49840805866
24-47mo-0.03294317140.981793346628
48mo and more0.50655995870.77805135421
Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %less than 24mo-0.83673587641.04726177356
24-47mo-0.03732497011.042026645428
48mo and more0.21855859990.842041715121
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
german SG-imitation of complex sentencesless than 24mo-0.80765666670.54602412076
24-47mo0.01033285711.09206936928
48mo and more0.390030.832676722421
Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Figure 9
4s5s6s
Perposition Imitation-1.22220000530.28463125510.5715638843
Case Imitation-0.8750283120.12577377580.4768917594
Complex Syntax Imitation-0.742030.17936840.59613875
Sentence Compleion-0.82382112070.06579087140.5769618302
Naming-1.03827279250.33211769460.5112507464
Descriptive Statistics
AGE3gpsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: german imitation preposition %4s-1.22220000530.874103650914
5s0.28463125510.690497033425
6s0.57156388430.669250875816
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %4s-0.82382112071.079564229414
5s0.06579087140.767717949925
6s0.57696183020.830086629116
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %4s-1.03827279250.887298788514
5s0.33211769460.832601435425
6s0.51125074640.629691474216
Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %4s-0.8750283121.019102939214
5s0.12577377580.947724199425
6s0.47689175940.542401661316
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
german SG-imitation of complex sentences4s-0.742030.86186368214
5s0.17936840.940402597725
6s0.596138750.799572549916
Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Figure 10a - Age
4s5s6s
Normed z-score-0.9722-0.5923-0.1118
Figure 10b - LEO
48mo
Normed z-score-1.0143-0.6645-0.3087
Figure 10c - AoO
36mo
Normed z-score-0.5081-0.6786-0.65
Figure 11a - mother occ
Complex syntaxPrepositions ImitationSentense CompletionNamingCase Imitation
unemployed-0.1531478571-0.268773612-0.1923206101-0.1298861173-0.1567072694
semi-skilled0.31004750.49849105850.11481827470.00777286590.0324461002
skilled-0.0756669231-0.1113859873-0.14639330020.0389245074-0.0162208132
professional1.07090666670.68929232580.95203486080.83595749540.4772202484
Figure 11b - father occ
Complex syntaxPrepositions ImitationSentense CompletionNamingCase Imitation
semi-skilled-0.39749-0.5610649151-0.4602299176-0.4065800481-0.5517951053
skilled0.03181777780.0992969178-0.01243864640.03078204830.0835589934
professional0.71699142860.56634439670.55399817530.63164763080.5327818217
Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics
MOTHOCCMeanStd. DeviationNFATHOCCdichMeanStd. DeviationN
german SG-imitation of complex sentencesprofessional1.07090666670.61113456926german SG-imitation of complex sentencesprofessional0.71699142860.672271951614
skilled-0.07566692311.170224759113skilled0.03181777781.089898038918
semi-skilled0.31004750.83609347928semi-skilled-0.397490.916999114321
unemployed-0.15314785710.924855130928unemployed0.685350.55686073232
Total0.06607290911.003970524155Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Zscore: german imitation preposition %professional0.68929232580.58916552356Zscore: german imitation preposition %professional0.56634439670.603892525814
skilled-0.11138598731.199580915613skilled0.09929691780.946722564918
semi-skilled0.49849105850.83883586718semi-skilled-0.56106491511.101007018121
unemployed-0.2687736120.968150399828unemployed0.60810029720.13778744162
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %professional0.95203486080.77702936896Zscore: german sentence completion %professional0.55399817530.816260226514
skilled-0.14639330021.284289151513skilled-0.01243864640.940941354918
semi-skilled0.11481827471.15895384728semi-skilled-0.46022991761.017249307321
unemployed-0.19232061010.757581511428unemployed0.73770741470.56832146432
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %professional0.83595749540.41687550716Zscore: german NV %professional0.63164763080.492934803414
skilled0.03892450741.351849374913skilled0.03078204831.010237594618
semi-skilled0.00777286590.9259973488semi-skilled-0.40658004811.105247093821
unemployed-0.12988611730.889548665728unemployed0.54408626030.49532191092
Total0.03540245841.007221757555Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %professional0.47722024840.60621099916Zscore: german case %professional0.53278182170.578858658914
skilled-0.01622081321.154864113313skilled0.08355899340.92980008518
semi-skilled0.03244610021.00911610428semi-skilled-0.55179510531.095851561821
unemployed-0.15670726941.00348311328unemployed0.574453001702
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
Figure 12
FatherMother
unemployed-0.7733333333
semi-skilled-0.896-0.5
skilled-0.6111111111-0.68
professional-0.056250.4428571429
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:normedSGzscores
FATHOCCdichMeanStd. DeviationN
professional-0.056250.833441659616
skilled-0.61111111110.937386158718
semi-skilled-0.8960.710328562525
unemployed-0.250.63639610312
Total-0.57049180330.865899197861
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:normedSGzscores
MOTHOCCMeanStd. DeviationN
professional0.44285714290.82027869837
skilled-0.680.846167832115
semi-skilled-0.50.86890735989
unemployed-0.77333333330.74830075730
Total-0.57049180330.865899197861
Figure 13
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
4s-0.4038689324-0.1046226066-0.453125004-0.2722210572-0.28762930430.2256810614
5s-0.0506774526-0.02089803950.1156623242-0.1824777897-0.2326423547-0.3123414689
6s0.50513262070.1427385850.30288409670.56731773890.66035462950.2387422993
Descriptive Statistics
AGE3gpsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %4s-0.40386893240.827709082818
5s-0.05067745261.032145033726
6s0.50513262070.948014979817
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %4s-0.10462260661.13804266218
5s-0.02089803951.001540535226
6s0.1427385850.878591596317
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %4s-0.4531250040.982417595718
5s0.11566232420.927233981726
6s0.30288409671.015359935617
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %4s-0.27222105720.806036755518
5s-0.18247778971.066234748726
6s0.56731773890.896615091217
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %4s-0.28762930430.774875733218
5s-0.23264235470.992055026826
6s0.66035462950.964326984917
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %4s0.22568106140.787799475118
5s-0.31234146891.047456031426
6s0.23874229931.048749085617
Total0161
Figure 14
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
Less than 14 years-0.2811059108-0.202773913-0.1753046327-0.3018001803-0.26137491-0.2545472436
14 years and more0.6715307870.48440434780.41878328930.72096709740.62439561820.608085082
Descriptive Statistics
MOTHEDUCdichotMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %less than 14yrs-0.28110591080.988573170843
14yrs and more0.6715307870.661518837218
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %less than 14yrs-0.2027739131.098858129243
14yrs and more0.48440434780.440170797418
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %less than 14yrs-0.17530463271.062108651143
14yrs and more0.41878328930.69207978418
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %less than 14yrs-0.30180018030.966707356443
14yrs and more0.72096709740.663199076618
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %less than 14yrs-0.261374910.950187469943
14yrs and more0.62439561820.844524097418
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %less than 14yrs-0.25454724361.019744275443
14yrs and more0.6080850820.63631006418
Total0161
Figure 15
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
singleton0.1996966190.0815499960.20905266650.34383193090.31788665480.3029127289
more than one child-0.1208690062-0.0493592081-0.1265318771-0.2081088003-0.1924050806-0.1833419149
Descriptive Statistics
FSdichotMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %singleton0.1996966191.0935008223
more than one child-0.12086900620.933190777538
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %singleton0.0815499961.007770087123
more than one child-0.04935920811.005542049538
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %singleton0.20905266650.972531259823
more than one child-0.12653187711.007786757138
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %singleton0.34383193091.010592253523
more than one child-0.20810880030.946781904338
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %singleton0.31788665481.020859298823
more than one child-0.19240508060.949276751338
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %singleton0.30291272890.897223413223
more than one child-0.18334191491.025381282338
Total0161
Sheet1
0.5122617756-0.7475725965-0.3783416585
0.0931697122-1.603511855-0.975990903
-0.1893864181-2.5667300479-1.8240061191
Imitation
Vocabulary
Total score
Age of L2 Onset
Z-scores
Age of L2 Onset - Standardized Hebrew Tests
Sheet2
-0.077962619-2.73653333-2.0290973598
0.0218427088-1.7016212801-0.991420159
0.4717139672-0.6788513552-0.4071274117
Imitation
Vocabulary
Total score
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Standardized Hebrew Tests
Sheet3
0.44370496670.47837154490.4800626133
0.10390763580.04335709620.33139352
-0.3188091751-0.3308378752-0.2122446702
Imitation
Sentence completion
NV Lexis
Age of L2 Onset
Z-scores
Age of L2 Onset - Linguistic Tasks
-0.3163083967-0.4917209114-0.2750865052
0.04916251030.1090698670.1925358379
0.49256471370.56049745610.5016283331
Imitation
Sentence completion
NV Lexis
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
0.1241290248-0.07563744830.17154761670.12527667380.42250.1624247527
-0.1205460442-0.0325976518-0.124962614-0.0911707385-0.0895-0.0352023228
Perposition imitation
Inflection imitation
complex syntax imitation
sentence completion
Naming
Case imitation
Family size
Z-scores
Family Size and Linguistic Performance in L1
-0.9995018696-0.8076566667-1.1912395996-1.2947025205
-0.05303479310.0103328571-0.0947250766-0.0329431714
0.31580899410.390030.43535262480.5065599587
Perposition Imitation
Complex syntax Imitation
Sentence Compleion
Naming
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
-1.2222000053-0.875028312-0.74203-0.8238211207-1.0382727925
0.28463125510.12577377580.17936840.06579087140.3321176946
0.57156388430.47689175940.596138750.57696183020.5112507464
Perposition Imitation
Case Imitation
Complex Syntax Imitation
Sentence Compleion
Naming
Age
Z-scores
Chronological Age - Linguistic Tasks
Normed z-score
Age
Z-score
Age and Normed z-score
Normed z-score
Length of exposure
z-score
Length of Exposure and Normed z-score
Father
Mother
Occupation
Z-scores
Parents occupation and Normed Language Scores
Complex syntax
Prepositions Imitation
Sentense Completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Occupation
Z-scores
Mother's Occupation and Language Tasks
-0.39749-0.5610649151-0.4602299176-0.4065800481-0.5517951053
0.03181777780.0992969178-0.01243864640.03078204830.0835589934
0.71699142860.56634439670.55399817530.63164763080.5327818217
Complex syntax
Prepositions Imitation
Sentense Completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Occupation
Z-scores
Father's Occupation and Language Tasks
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Age
Z-scores
Chronological Age - Linguistic Tasks L1
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Mother's Education
Z-scores
Mother's Education and Linguistic Tasks L1
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Family size
Z-scores
Family Size and Linguistic Performance in L1
Chart2
-0.9995018696-0.8076566667-1.1912395996-1.2947025205
-0.05303479310.0103328571-0.0947250766-0.0329431714
0.31580899410.390030.43535262480.5065599587
Perposition Imitation
Complex syntax Imitation
Sentence Compleion
Naming
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
Sheet1
Figure 3
36mo
Imitation0.51226177560.0931697122-0.1893864181
Vocabulary-0.7475725965-1.603511855-2.5667300479
Total score-0.3783416585-0.975990903-1.8240061191
Descriptive Statistics
Age of Onset 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Goralnik z scoresbefore 24mo-0.37834165850.957038781322
25-36mo-0.9759909030.797869004521
after 36mo-1.82400611911.684913193829
Total-1.13493754031.395920674372
GoralnikZvocbefore 24mo-0.74757259651.058164963622
25-36mo-1.6035118551.18474259121
after 36mo-2.56673004791.847649837529
Total-1.72993774261.631753287372
goralnikZimibefore 24mo0.51226177560.427627966922
25-36mo0.09316971220.799070076721
after 36mo-0.18938641811.11130557229
Total0.10741829020.898787634172
Figure 4
48mo
Imitation-0.0779626190.02184270880.4717139672
Vocabulary-2.73653333-1.7016212801-0.6788513552
Total score-2.0290973598-0.991420159-0.4071274117
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Goralnik z scoresless than 24mo-2.02909735981.333272202423
24-47mo-0.9914201591.324901629633
48mo and more-0.40712741171.038776918318
Total-1.17181618831.395324700474
GoralnikZvocless than 24mo-2.736533332.004753216523
24-47mo-1.70162128011.206784888233
48mo and more-0.67885135521.02607083918
Total-1.77450125981.638531263174
goralnikZimiless than 24mo-0.0779626191.066243081223
24-47mo0.02184270880.897166495733
48mo and more0.47171396720.479747625318
Total0.10025027790.892111939274
Figure 5
36mo
Imitation0.44370496670.1039076358-0.3188091751
Sentence completion0.47837154490.0433570962-0.3308378752
NV Lexis0.48006261330.33139352-0.2122446702
Descriptive Statistics
Age of Onset 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)before 24mo0.44370496670.559232404821
25-36mo0.10390763580.619807516222
after 36mo-0.31880917511.268423995731
Total0.02325253870.979739148674
Zscore: sentence completion (out of 42)before 24mo0.47837154490.712200980421
25-36mo0.04335709620.973486113122
after 36mo-0.33083787521.094942694631
Total0.01004978961.008493672674
ZHebLexisNVbefore 24mo0.48006261330.509293787221
25-36mo0.331393520.513446288422
after 36mo-0.21224467020.845340403231
Total0.14584307490.733167362874
Figure 6
48mo
Imitation-0.31630839670.04916251030.4925647137
Sentence completion-0.49172091140.1090698670.5604974561
NV Lexis-0.27508650520.19253583790.5016283331
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 GROUPSMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)less than 24mo-0.31630839671.220405680325
24-47mo0.04916251030.875634337535
48mo and more0.49256471370.480501081717
Total0.02839711790.974387687677
Zscore: sentence completion (out of 42)less than 24mo-0.49172091140.98762524625
24-47mo0.1090698671.007929586435
48mo and more0.56049745610.619406368117
Total0.01367375730.9991907877
ZHebLexisNVless than 24mo-0.27508650520.817965927325
24-47mo0.19253583790.655914942635
48mo and more0.50162833310.561843210117
Total0.1089516020.745944484377
Figure 7
SingletonTwo or more
Perposition imitation0.1241290248-0.1205460442
Inflection imitation-0.0756374483-0.0325976518
complex syntax imitation0.1715476167-0.124962614
sentence completion0.1252766738-0.0911707385
Naming0.4225-0.0895
Case imitation0.1624247527-0.0352023228
Descriptive Statistics
Family SizeMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: imitation preposition (out of 35)singleton0.12412902481.132509579314
two or more children-0.12054604421.054233267149
Total-0.06617380661.067654648863
Zscore: imitation inflection (out of 40)singleton-0.07563744831.336664110414
two or more children-0.03259765181.008645994949
Total-0.0421620511.078234045963
Zscore: imitation complex (out of 20)singleton0.17154761670.989568951714
two or more children-0.1249626141.013120760449
Total-0.05907145161.007675354363
Zscore: sentence completion (1st+2nd trials) (out of 135)singleton0.12527667380.995981254214
two or more children-0.09117073851.006264664449
Total-0.04307131361.000073811563
Zscore: Case (out of 12)singleton0.16242475270.986979343314
two or more children-0.03520232281.016579538449
Total0.00871480511.005579421863
Figure 8
48mo
Perposition Imitation-0.9995018696-0.05303479310.3158089941
Complex syntax Imitation-0.80765666670.01033285710.39003
Sentence Compleion-1.1912395996-0.09472507660.4353526248
Naming-1.2947025205-0.03294317140.5065599587
Descriptive Statistics
LOE 3 groupsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: german imitation preposition %less than 24mo-0.99950186960.60923243596
24-47mo-0.05303479311.021981887628
48mo and more0.31580899410.949634406621
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %less than 24mo-1.19123959960.82436003036
24-47mo-0.09472507660.903034355428
48mo and more0.43535262480.905721406821
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %less than 24mo-1.29470252050.49840805866
24-47mo-0.03294317140.981793346628
48mo and more0.50655995870.77805135421
Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %less than 24mo-0.83673587641.04726177356
24-47mo-0.03732497011.042026645428
48mo and more0.21855859990.842041715121
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
german SG-imitation of complex sentencesless than 24mo-0.80765666670.54602412076
24-47mo0.01033285711.09206936928
48mo and more0.390030.832676722421
Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Figure 9
4s5s6s
Perposition Imitation-1.22220000530.28463125510.5715638843
Case Imitation-0.8750283120.12577377580.4768917594
Complex Syntax Imitation-0.742030.17936840.59613875
Sentence Compleion-0.82382112070.06579087140.5769618302
Naming-1.03827279250.33211769460.5112507464
Descriptive Statistics
AGE3gpsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: german imitation preposition %4s-1.22220000530.874103650914
5s0.28463125510.690497033425
6s0.57156388430.669250875816
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %4s-0.82382112071.079564229414
5s0.06579087140.767717949925
6s0.57696183020.830086629116
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %4s-1.03827279250.887298788514
5s0.33211769460.832601435425
6s0.51125074640.629691474216
Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %4s-0.8750283121.019102939214
5s0.12577377580.947724199425
6s0.47689175940.542401661316
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
german SG-imitation of complex sentences4s-0.742030.86186368214
5s0.17936840.940402597725
6s0.596138750.799572549916
Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Figure 10a - Age
4s5s6s
Normed z-score-0.9722-0.5923-0.1118
Figure 10b - LEO
48mo
Normed z-score-1.0143-0.6645-0.3087
Figure 10c - AoO
36mo
Normed z-score-0.5081-0.6786-0.65
Figure 11a - mother occ
Complex syntaxPrepositions ImitationSentense CompletionNamingCase Imitation
unemployed-0.1531478571-0.268773612-0.1923206101-0.1298861173-0.1567072694
semi-skilled0.31004750.49849105850.11481827470.00777286590.0324461002
skilled-0.0756669231-0.1113859873-0.14639330020.0389245074-0.0162208132
professional1.07090666670.68929232580.95203486080.83595749540.4772202484
Figure 11b - father occ
Complex syntaxPrepositions ImitationSentense CompletionNamingCase Imitation
semi-skilled-0.39749-0.5610649151-0.4602299176-0.4065800481-0.5517951053
skilled0.03181777780.0992969178-0.01243864640.03078204830.0835589934
professional0.71699142860.56634439670.55399817530.63164763080.5327818217
Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics
MOTHOCCMeanStd. DeviationNFATHOCCdichMeanStd. DeviationN
german SG-imitation of complex sentencesprofessional1.07090666670.61113456926german SG-imitation of complex sentencesprofessional0.71699142860.672271951614
skilled-0.07566692311.170224759113skilled0.03181777781.089898038918
semi-skilled0.31004750.83609347928semi-skilled-0.397490.916999114321
unemployed-0.15314785710.924855130928unemployed0.685350.55686073232
Total0.06607290911.003970524155Total0.06607290911.003970524155
Zscore: german imitation preposition %professional0.68929232580.58916552356Zscore: german imitation preposition %professional0.56634439670.603892525814
skilled-0.11138598731.199580915613skilled0.09929691780.946722564918
semi-skilled0.49849105850.83883586718semi-skilled-0.56106491511.101007018121
unemployed-0.2687736120.968150399828unemployed0.60810029720.13778744162
Total-0.01545448271.020585199355Total-0.01545448271.020585199355
Zscore: german sentence completion %professional0.95203486080.77702936896Zscore: german sentence completion %professional0.55399817530.816260226514
skilled-0.14639330021.284289151513skilled-0.01243864640.940941354918
semi-skilled0.11481827471.15895384728semi-skilled-0.46022991761.017249307321
unemployed-0.19232061010.757581511428unemployed0.73770741470.56832146432
Total-0.01195153861.005172318355Total-0.01195153861.005172318355
Zscore: german NV %professional0.83595749540.41687550716Zscore: german NV %professional0.63164763080.492934803414
skilled0.03892450741.351849374913skilled0.03078204831.010237594618
semi-skilled0.00777286590.9259973488semi-skilled-0.40658004811.105247093821
unemployed-0.12988611730.889548665728unemployed0.54408626030.49532191092
Total0.03540245841.007221757555Total0.03540245841.007221757555
Zscore: german case %professional0.47722024840.60621099916Zscore: german case %professional0.53278182170.578858658914
skilled-0.01622081321.154864113313skilled0.08355899340.92980008518
semi-skilled0.03244610021.00911610428semi-skilled-0.55179510531.095851561821
unemployed-0.15670726941.00348311328unemployed0.574453001702
Total-0.02683243311.001710523155Total-0.02683243311.001710523155
Figure 12
FatherMother
unemployed-0.7733333333
semi-skilled-0.896-0.5
skilled-0.6111111111-0.68
professional-0.056250.4428571429
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:normedSGzscores
FATHOCCdichMeanStd. DeviationN
professional-0.056250.833441659616
skilled-0.61111111110.937386158718
semi-skilled-0.8960.710328562525
unemployed-0.250.63639610312
Total-0.57049180330.865899197861
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:normedSGzscores
MOTHOCCMeanStd. DeviationN
professional0.44285714290.82027869837
skilled-0.680.846167832115
semi-skilled-0.50.86890735989
unemployed-0.77333333330.74830075730
Total-0.57049180330.865899197861
Figure 13
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
4s-0.4038689324-0.1046226066-0.453125004-0.2722210572-0.28762930430.2256810614
5s-0.0506774526-0.02089803950.1156623242-0.1824777897-0.2326423547-0.3123414689
6s0.50513262070.1427385850.30288409670.56731773890.66035462950.2387422993
Descriptive Statistics
AGE3gpsMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %4s-0.40386893240.827709082818
5s-0.05067745261.032145033726
6s0.50513262070.948014979817
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %4s-0.10462260661.13804266218
5s-0.02089803951.001540535226
6s0.1427385850.878591596317
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %4s-0.4531250040.982417595718
5s0.11566232420.927233981726
6s0.30288409671.015359935617
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %4s-0.27222105720.806036755518
5s-0.18247778971.066234748726
6s0.56731773890.896615091217
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %4s-0.28762930430.774875733218
5s-0.23264235470.992055026826
6s0.66035462950.964326984917
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %4s0.22568106140.787799475118
5s-0.31234146891.047456031426
6s0.23874229931.048749085617
Total0161
Figure 14
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
Less than 14 years-0.2811059108-0.202773913-0.1753046327-0.3018001803-0.26137491-0.2545472436
14 years and more0.6715307870.48440434780.41878328930.72096709740.62439561820.608085082
Descriptive Statistics
MOTHEDUCdichotMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %less than 14yrs-0.28110591080.988573170843
14yrs and more0.6715307870.661518837218
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %less than 14yrs-0.2027739131.098858129243
14yrs and more0.48440434780.440170797418
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %less than 14yrs-0.17530463271.062108651143
14yrs and more0.41878328930.69207978418
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %less than 14yrs-0.30180018030.966707356443
14yrs and more0.72096709740.663199076618
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %less than 14yrs-0.261374910.950187469943
14yrs and more0.62439561820.844524097418
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %less than 14yrs-0.25454724361.019744275443
14yrs and more0.6080850820.63631006418
Total0161
Figure 15
Imitation prepositionsImitation injflectionsImitation complex syntaxSentence completionNamingCase Imitation
singleton0.1996966190.0815499960.20905266650.34383193090.31788665480.3029127289
more than one child-0.1208690062-0.0493592081-0.1265318771-0.2081088003-0.1924050806-0.1833419149
Descriptive Statistics
FSdichotMeanStd. DeviationN
Zscore: russian imitation preposition %singleton0.1996966191.0935008223
more than one child-0.12086900620.933190777538
Total0161
Zscore: russian imitation inflection %singleton0.0815499961.007770087123
more than one child-0.04935920811.005542049538
Total-0161
Zscore: russian imitation complex %singleton0.20905266650.972531259823
more than one child-0.12653187711.007786757138
Total0161
Zscore: russian Sentence Completion %singleton0.34383193091.010592253523
more than one child-0.20810880030.946781904338
Total-0161
Zscore: russian NV %singleton0.31788665481.020859298823
more than one child-0.19240508060.949276751338
Total0161
Zscore: russian case %singleton0.30291272890.897223413223
more than one child-0.18334191491.025381282338
Total0161
Sheet1
0.5122617756-0.7475725965-0.3783416585
0.0931697122-1.603511855-0.975990903
-0.1893864181-2.5667300479-1.8240061191
Imitation
Vocabulary
Total score
Age of L2 Onset
Z-scores
Age of L2 Onset - Standardized Hebrew Tests
Sheet2
-0.077962619-2.73653333-2.0290973598
0.0218427088-1.7016212801-0.991420159
0.4717139672-0.6788513552-0.4071274117
Imitation
Vocabulary
Total score
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Standardized Hebrew Tests
Sheet3
0.44370496670.47837154490.4800626133
0.10390763580.04335709620.33139352
-0.3188091751-0.3308378752-0.2122446702
Imitation
Sentence completion
NV Lexis
Age of L2 Onset
Z-scores
Age of L2 Onset - Linguistic Tasks
-0.3163083967-0.4917209114-0.2750865052
0.04916251030.1090698670.1925358379
0.49256471370.56049745610.5016283331
Imitation
Sentence completion
NV Lexis
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
0.1241290248-0.07563744830.17154761670.12527667380.42250.1624247527
-0.1205460442-0.0325976518-0.124962614-0.0911707385-0.0895-0.0352023228
Perposition imitation
Inflection imitation
complex syntax imitation
sentence completion
Naming
Case imitation
Family size
Z-scores
Family Size and Linguistic Performance in L1
Perposition Imitation
Complex syntax Imitation
Sentence Compleion
Naming
Length of Exposure
Z-scores
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
Perposition Imitation
Case Imitation
Complex Syntax Imitation
Sentence Compleion
Naming
Age
Z-scores
Chronological Age - Linguistic Tasks
Normed z-score
Age
Z-score
Age and Normed z-score
Normed z-score
Length of exposure
z-score
Length of Exposure and Normed z-score
Father
Mother
Occupation
Z-scores
Parents occupation and Normed Language Scores
Complex syntax
Prepositions Imitation
Sentense Completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Occupation
Z-scores
Mother's Occupation and Language Tasks
-0.39749-0.5610649151-0.4602299176-0.4065800481-0.5517951053
0.03181777780.0992969178-0.01243864640.03078204830.0835589934
0.71699142860.56634439670.55399817530.63164763080.5327818217
Complex syntax
Prepositions Imitation
Sentense Completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Occupation
Z-scores
Father's Occupation and Language Tasks
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Age
Z-scores
Chronological Age - Linguistic Tasks L1
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Mother's Education
Z-scores
Mother's Education and Linguistic Tasks L1
Imitation prepositions
Imitation injflections
Imitation complex syntax
Sentence completion
Naming
Case Imitation
Family size
Z-scores
Family Size and Linguistic Performance in L1
Points for discussionWhen is it appropriate/meaningful to use a standardized test?How should such tests be used?
What of this is relevant for SLI?The answer depends on the cause for SLI is. The answer depend on the nature of SLI
Appendix
Categories for use of definite article: Judgment task.Cat1 - First vs. second reference:I ate an/*the apple. The/*an apple was tasty.Cat2 - Abstract and Generic nounsWhat did you do for the/*a world Cat3 - Unique termThe history of the western world is importantCat4 - Noun-Adjective agreementDan raa et ha-mexonit *(ha-)adumaDan saw acc the-car the redDan saw the red carCat5 - Quantifier -NounAll the children entered
Cat6 - definiteness for possession:koev li ha-rosh.Cat7 - Noun + Free Possessorata makir et ha-ben sheli? Cat8 - Noun+bound possessor - Adjective agreementxaveri ha-blondini meod nexmadCat9 - conjunctionThe boys and the girls leftCat10 - Supperlative formsYerushalayim hi ha-ir ha-yafa beyoterCat11 - Definiteness resistant areaskaniti meat matanot la-yeled
Categories for use of definite article: Picture elicitation taskDavid maca ________(et ha-maftexot) sheloDavid found __________ acc the-keys hisDavid found his keysGeneric nouns (Cat1)Where does the light come from? It comes from _________ (the sun)First vs. second reference (Cat2&3)David picked _______ (a/*the ball). He through _____ (the/*a ball) to Jenny.Noun + Possessive pronoun (Cat4)
For verbs, form similarity should also result in a conceptual feature overlap between verbs and their translation equivalents, on the other hand, verbs have been found to be tied in more with grammar (Schelletter et al. 2001). This could affect the speed of translation of verbs, as well as the acquisition of early verbs.
Figure 1 shows that identical nouns classed occur as frequently as the other noun types in the first observation period, although there are few tokens. This changes for the German context for the remainder of the observation period where nouns that are not similar become the most frequent noun type. In the English context, identical and form-similar nouns are more frequent than not similar nouns in the second observation period but the picture becomes more similar to the German context for the last observation period. Figure 2 shows that the distribution of identical, form similar and not similar verbs remains similar during the observation period and for both language contexts. The high proportion of identical verbs was only due to the frequent occurrence of the be verb in both language contexts.
Quantitatively, the percentage of null objects in Timmys first eight recording sessions (2;04-2;08) ranges from 9.1%-28.6%, a higher range than has been reported in any monolingual studies. In the subsequent period from 2;09-3;06, the rate drops but remains consistently above 5%. In the parallel development of Timmy's Cantonese in the same period (2;04-2;8), the rate of null objects ranges from 12.3%-35.3% and is consistently above 10% throughout the whole period, remaining between 22.9%-35.8% toward the end of the recording (3;04-3;06).
(14) INV: Where shall we stick it? (Timmy 2;05;05) CHI: Put here. (15) I put in the where? (Sophie 2;05;25)
We focused on the use of definiteness by
10 to 12, i.e., before puberty,
, i.e., since they were 3 to 6.In order to try and contribute something to this debate, we have decided to choose a slightly different angle.Standard deviationSgnificantly better - p-value 0.009The children in both control groups scored better then the L2 children (~95%)Limiting the comparison to the categories which appear in both tasks yields the same results.
In a category by category comparison, there are some marginally significant differences, but not in a unified direction.
Our findings indicate that the major
It is important to remember, however, that even the control group children did not score at ceiling, suggesting that for some uses of the definite article the process of acquisition has not been completed, yet.
ISRAELI FATHERS HIGHER SES, BLUE BARSISRAELI MOTHERS MUCH HIGHER STATUS, MANY GERMAN MOTHERS UNEMPLOYED, MORE TIME TO SPEND WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN RUSSIAN, AS WELL SEE LATER*The results on our battery of tasks were rather similar, so I skip them in order to keep to the time limit, but can return to them in the question period.